Thread: Post WWI scenario with Central Powers victory?

Failed at what? Do you mean if we had not entered the war? Do you mean if we entered on the side of the central powers and they still lost? Do you mean if we entered on the side of the allies and stalemate continued? Do you mean if we entered on the side of the allies and the central powers won?

Do you mean if we entered on the side of the allies and the central powers won?

yes the last one.. sorry

Originally Posted by Big K

yes the last one.. sorry

That probably depends on the scope of the defeat. The US offered Germany very generous terms in our separate peace treaty. If defeated on the battlefield, the US would not have been nearly as generous. And, Germany had no means of dictating terms to the US. It could take Paris. Not Washington.

Originally Posted by Pablo Cortez

The question of the effects of a victory of the Central Powers in World War I is something that deserves an extensive consideration because it provides the opportunity to exorcise some of the corrosive popular notions created by the British propagandists as part of an effort to sell a skeptical British public an unpopular war.

Never mind that 'invasion of Belgium' nonsense!!

Sadly American leadership has faithfully followed the British model of duping public opinion in all the major conflicts since 1914.

coughVietnam War protestscough

Another piece of historical orthodoxy is the nearly universal condemnation of the Treaty of Breat-Litovsk as a demonstration of German rapacity. Interestingly enough, the frontiers it established were virtually identical to those arising in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR. Does that invalidate the self-determination of its peoples, or does it indicate that the negative evaluation of the treaty was essentially propaganda? Worse still, did it demonstrate the will of the Central Powers to establish a postwar system more just than that of the Paris treaties inflicted by the Allies?

And who declared war on Russia?? And why??

The survival of Austria-Hungary is another, and closely related, example of Allied historical orthodoxy. Rather than admit that they had destroyed a nation simply to sate their greed (as demontrated by the promises of the secret Treaty of London in 1915), it was convenient to attribute the end of the Habsburg Monarchy to inevitable internal conflict. Yet the monarchy had held together well throughout the entire course of the war without any uprising of any of its various peoples. The collapse came only after military defeat and by the agency of external committees fomenting partition between greedy neighbors and new homeland for expatriate patriots. A militarily successful Austria-Hungary might more likely have become a Superswitzerland or a prototype of a European Union.

Right. Lets go over this shall we?

1. Austria, following the declaration of war, imposed martial law on the country. Unrestricted censorship of the press, prohibition of assemblies, resorting to military court in political matters. Which violated the "Compromise".

2. Austria, prorogued it's parliament until May 1917. Which violated the "Compromise".

3. Hungary, refused to ship food supplies to Austria.

4. In May 1917, when the parliament was reinstated, Slavic nationals gave notice of severing their allegiance to Austria.

5. Jan 1918, strikes by munitions and armament workers in and around Vienna.

6. Following Emperor Charles' attempt to alter the 'Compromise of 1867', Hungary, declared it's Realunion with Austria ended, Oct 31, 1918.


Now, call me crazy, but this doesn't sound like the 'nirvana' you've told us.

Much more to say, but hoping there is still interest in this subject.

Hopefully you'll be reading more about WWI before posting...

The victory of the Central Powers would give much more strength to the Communist movements in Europe. Actually such a victory would inadvertedly give ground for massive uprisings all over Europe. It would also lend more ground to the Trotskiy wing of the Communist party, who demanded immediate opening of hostilities with all capitalist nations. The war with poland of 1920 wouldn't have happened. Instead the Red Army would have a direct border with the victorious, but internally unstable Austrian Empire. Even if it managed to stay together, it would have been a virtual breeding ground for destabilizing elements. While an actual series of Communist revolutions is questionable, it is certainly plausible.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

That probably depends on the scope of the defeat. The US offered Germany very generous terms in our separate peace treaty. If defeated on the battlefield, the US would not have been nearly as generous. And, Germany had no means of dictating terms to the US. It could take Paris. Not Washington.

i was wondering what would be the effects of a WW1 defeat at the time of deciding to enter WW2?

Originally Posted by Big K

i was wondering what would be the effects of a WW1 defeat at the time of deciding to enter WW2?

I think it would depend on the scope of the defeat. Say the US sent the historical number of troops, but those did not stop the German advance. Ultimately, the French sue for peace leaving the US and UK holding some small part of France. Perhaps a beach head around Dunkirk. Some sort of armistace is reached.

Then, I figure WWII happens just as soon as the German economy collapses. Probably 1920 or 21. The US and UK will probably work at bringing about a German economic collapse. The US would probably have dealt harshly with Germany over the Claims Commission. Think Germany losing most of her overseas business investments and the money held in US banks and banks who wanted to do business in the US. Germany would have also found herself cut out of most international financing systems at least until all the US claims had been paid. Rather than the orderly process that really took place. The US would have likely squeezed the German economy into collapse. Then, the US "would have had no choice" but to enter Germany and restore order or "protect it from the communists."

feanor,

The victory of the Central Powers would give much more strength to the Communist movements in Europe. Actually such a victory would inadvertedly give ground for massive uprisings all over Europe

i doubt that. the prussian leadership of germany detested the communists with a passion, and any victory by the central powers would lead to crackdown of the socialists and communists, which the kaiser could not safely do (politically) before the war.

i suppose it would depend on when the central powers won. had they won in 1918 with their offensive, then your scenario becomes more likely. if they had won in 1914, then not at all.

wabpilot,

Then, I figure WWII happens just as soon as the German economy collapses. Probably 1920 or 21. The US and UK will probably work at bringing about a German economic collapse. The US would probably have dealt harshly with Germany over the Claims Commission. Think Germany losing most of her overseas business investments and the money held in US banks and banks who wanted to do business in the US. Germany would have also found herself cut out of most international financing systems at least until all the US claims had been paid. Rather than the orderly process that really took place. The US would have likely squeezed the German economy into collapse. Then, the US "would have had no choice" but to enter Germany and restore order or "protect it from the communists."

i'm not sure how the germans could have pulled off victory against the allies after US involvement, but even assuming they had, a victory in 1918 means that they'd push like hell to punish the allies (much as the allies did in regards to the central powers). the US and UK would probably get off lightest, because as you say, the germans really could not touch them. but france would have been screwed up the wall, both landwise and reparations. the germans were looking to take something along the order of 2/3 of belgium, the border forts of france, and demilitarizing the rest of belgium and a further strip of territory in france. (as well as the creation of a german-dominated trade zone.)

the monies the germans realized from these reparations would probably have lasted until the inevitable post-war recession, probably followed by a depression for much the same reasons as in our timeline. but it wouldn't collapse- hell, germany didn't collapse even after defeat.

the US, especially after a (non-catastrophic) defeat in the war, probably would have pulled even deeper into isolationism.

Originally Posted by wabpilot

I think it would depend on the scope of the defeat. Say the US sent the historical number of troops, but those did not stop the German advance. Ultimately, the French sue for peace leaving the US and UK holding some small part of France. Perhaps a beach head around Dunkirk. Some sort of armistace is reached.

Then, I figure WWII happens just as soon as the German economy collapses. Probably 1920 or 21. The US and UK will probably work at bringing about a German economic collapse. The US would probably have dealt harshly with Germany over the Claims Commission. Think Germany losing most of her overseas business investments and the money held in US banks and banks who wanted to do business in the US. Germany would have also found herself cut out of most international financing systems at least until all the US claims had been paid. Rather than the orderly process that really took place. The US would have likely squeezed the German economy into collapse. Then, the US "would have had no choice" but to enter Germany and restore order or "protect it from the communists."

why German economy collapsing??? if Germany wins ww1 they'll reach a lot of economic resources? a winner Germany would have take the control of limitless Russian farming areas right?? also with Ottomans maybe they gain a major control/influence on the ME?

btw i highly doubt that US will debate with a winner Germany who controls the Europe. i mean whats the point? i also doubt about the financial issues...i mean "money talks" right?

another question is if GErmany had won ww1 will there be a 2nd ww?

big k,

another question is if GErmany had won ww1 will there be a 2nd ww?

most certainly. the germans, if anything, were going to come down just as hard as the allies did. france and the UK would be itching for round 2.

Originally Posted by Big K

why German economy collapsing??? if Germany wins ww1 they'll reach a lot of economic resources? a winner Germany would have take the control of limitless Russian farming areas right?? also with Ottomans maybe they gain a major control/influence on the ME?

That does not offset their losses to the US claims commission. Further, it still does not gain them access to international banking, controlled by London and Washington. Nor, does it get them any help from the US Federal Reserve in holding off a recession. If Germany pulls off a win, it's still bankrupt and owes the US more than it can ever repay. Further, the US holds a great deal of German financial assets as well as businesses.

btw i highly doubt that US will debate with a winner Germany who controls the Europe. i mean whats the point? i also doubt about the financial issues...i mean "money talks" right?

It's more like a poker game where one player holds a royal flush, everyone knows it, but has to keep betting.

another question is if GErmany had won ww1 will there be a 2nd ww?

Yes. Japan and the west are on a collision course. History dictates that Germany join the club of reasonably well behaved nations, or it perishes. The same is true for Japan.

Would anybody care to speculate what the world would look like if the Central Powers had defeated the Allies in WWI? Keep in mind, purely hypothetical.

Palestine remains in the hands of the Turks.
Idn Bin Saud remains a brigand in the deserats of Arabia. Instead of the the Brits/ Americans the Germans own the Arabian oil fields.

Originally Posted by astralis

feanor,



i doubt that. the prussian leadership of germany detested the communists with a passion, and any victory by the central powers would lead to crackdown of the socialists and communists, which the kaiser could not safely do (politically) before the war.

i suppose it would depend on when the central powers won. had they won in 1918 with their offensive, then your scenario becomes more likely. if they had won in 1914, then not at all.

Cracking down on communism always encourages more of it. I'd be more worried if they simply ignored it, and brought it within legal bounds. Then the communist movements would have had no chance to win.

kind of reminiscent of good old Putin. If he keeps this up soon people will be ready to revolt in the streets. People are more likely to revolt and follow a radical ideology if the government is cracking down on it. Especially if it's violent.